About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
the republican party become a party again the way it was during ronald reagan? i feel that the republican party is just slowly and slowly becoming smaller and smaller and smaller party began throwing people out like me for approval to become republicans and you're not a real republican and things like that and the democratic party is doing the opposite. they were the small party, very small when the 70's and 80's and now they are the inclusive party. latinos are bringing in -- well, the blacks before hand bringing all these other groups in the republican party to switch and start to be more of an inclusive party. >> why don't we take the first question first and come back and close. >> the h-1b visa and the whole process is totally broken. the entire agricultural community, the entire community from growing fruits and such tools to working or anything come agricultural rights thousands and thousands are applied for less than 2% of the work force is improved, visa and a lot of the migratory while baseball there is a 50% work force with 100 percent of their visas are approved. who doesn't work fo
countries have transformed, reform, lower the rates. we haven't touched it since ronald reagan in 1986. bill clinton did raise it at one point but we haven't done anything to touch the rate and reform -- tecum from 16.5% to 15% which most of you are aware of because you do business there, and this capital investment is going to follow countries that have a more competitive environment in taxes is one of them's a we have to reform the tax code and when you do that you will get more revenue. it's guaranteed. again, as i was talking at earlier there are opportunities here for us as a country and if you look at the congressional budget analysts this and go to the tax committee analysis what tax reform could mean in the economic growth and all of them will lead to more growth with this corporate tax reform. estimate of the president says what he did last friday, this was fought over in the campaign and we fought over rising tax rates. jay carney said they would veto any bill that extends the current tax rate so if he insists that tax rates go out for those making over to under $50,000 will would
the rates. think about it. we haven't touched it since ronald reagan really. in 1986. bill clinton did raise the rate one point but we haven't done anything to touch our rate and reform our code. every other country, all of them have. taxes gone from 16% to 15%. you do business there. this flow of capital will follow countries that have more competitive environment and taxes are one of them. yes, we have to reform the tax code. when you do that, i will get more revenue. it is guaranteed. again, sort of as i was talking about earlier. this is opportunities here. this is opportunity for us as a country. if you look at the congressional budget analysis and joint tax committee analysis, what tax reform could mean in terms of macroeconomic impact and growth, all will lead to more growth, whether corporate tax reform or individual tax reform. >> right but if the president insists as he did last friday, this was fought over in the campaign and, fought over tax rates, rising tax rates, he didn't ice the words rates himself but jay carney, the white house press secretary said the president will veto
% interest rates gas lines, stagflation in 1888 different president. ronald reagan inherited a struggling economy. and reagan implemented policies 180 degrees opposite those of obama. incentive jacking up taxes, he slashed taxes. instead of exploding spending on the debt, he restrain the growth of spending and instead of unleashing the the regulators, by the way, what i think the regulators i can't help think of mr. burns saying release the hounds. [laughter] instead of releasing the hounds of regulators and small businesses a notch when there is, reagan limited regulation and the result was one of the most extraordinary burst of economic proactivity our nation has ever seen. the fourth-year regulation precisely corresponds to write here, the fourth year of obama's president be. anyone know what gdp growth was in 1984? 7.2%. our ideas work, their ideas don't. if you want growth, if you want jobs, if you want 23 million people struggling to find to get jobs, the answer is that the unique growth. they simplify the tax burden, reduce regulations and punching small businesses a notch for view
that to us when ronald reagan ran for reelection in 1984, the similar situation he raised money for his primary and the party come even though he took the public general election funding he attended for fundraisers in that year. what are we doing when we have the president running around? as i recall the nevada event after libya was a fundraiser. this is the fourth of his time in office is this election year and a spinning in a fundraisers. romney skeen skeen videotaped it is fundraisers talking about the 47% in a private room with people that's what they want to hear. that's who he's meeting with all the time. so this is a problem for both sides and were going to see the pressure in the house and senate races. >> we only have a minute left, but it does to hear if there is an action of some sort taken to compel disclosure or the higher degree of independence for whatever measures the face. the vision of the future two, three, four cyclists on the road butter politics is going to look like. you were describing a minute ago the growth of the party structure composed of these sorts of orga
examples of presidents who solved big problems by finding common ground with the other side. ronald reagan did it with a democratic-led house after a far more resounding second-term victory than president obama's, as did bill clinton, with a republican-controlled house and a republican-controlled senate after a more resounding second-term victory than president obama. both examples -- both of them -- illustrate the rare opportunity that divided government presents. president obama can follow suit or he can take the extremist view that both reagan and clinton rejected, by thumbing his nose at the other side and insisting that if republicans aren't willing to do things his way, he won't do anything at all. now, if the president's serious, he'll follow the leads of president reagan and clinton. if he's really serious, he'll put the campaign rhetoric aside, propose a realistic solution that can pass a republican-controlled house and a divided senate, and work to get it done. and if the president acts in this spirit, i have no doubt he'll have the support of his own party and a willing partner
, it tried to put facts behind ronald reagan saying we fought a war on poverty and poverty won. he basically argued the welfare state had hurt poor people particularly african-americans by discouraging marriage, encouraging laziness, encouraging people to have children out-of-wedlock. he put all the blame on poverty programs. as i was writing this book charles murray writes another book called coming apart:the state of white america and charles murray is now basically saying the same thing about white lower class, really working class men, white men, that he was saying about african-americans in the 80s, that they are working less and getting married less frequently not because of any change in the economy or in culture but because they can be supported by government. he also blamed feminism and that is very interesting. he really has an analysis that says working-class white people struggling because they are lazy and don't get married and hook up. so i started to think white people are starting to say the same thing about you, so mitt romney's 47% remark where he was talking about a majori
been pro-immigration. ronald reagan was solidly for immigration reform, and if you go to youtube and google reagan-mondale debate, reagan making the case not for legalization, but for amnesty. using that word. now, republicans are pro-immigration, but they have been afraid for the past six years of anti-immigration lobby with an incredible political machine, and anybody who says anything constructive on immigration will be labeled pro-amnesty, and certainly, some talk show hosts, and now, i think this election cycle dramatically changed that. i can, at least, number half a dozen talk shows that said, you know what? my position evolved, and now i'm for immigration reform, but that is good because it will give cover to a lot of republicans who have avoided the issue or want to deal with the issue to actually do it so we have to reclaim the issue, and we can do it because immigration and being for immigration reform is actually the conservative position. restrictionists at the end is part of the nationalist, protectionist paradigm, and if we are the party of the family, if we ar
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8